On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>> [ It's cool you're working on this, I'd really like a git-repack in C.
>> That would fix this
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/226458 ]
>> Stefan Beller <stefanbel...@googlemail.com> writes:
>>> From: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com>
>>> pack-objects learns a few more options to take over what's been done
>>> by git-repack.sh. cmd_repack() becomes a wrapper around
>> I think the patch would read easier if these were split into two
>> patches: one doing the real stuff in pack-objects, and then getting rid
>> of git-repack.sh to replace it with a trivial built-in.
>> Actually, I'm wondering why pack-objects requires so much changes.
>> git-repack.sh was already a relatively small wrapper around
>> pack-objects, and did not need the new options you add, so why are they
>> needed? In particular adding the new --update-info option that just does
>>> + if (repack_flags & REPACK_UPDATE_INFO)
>>> + update_server_info(0);
>> seems overkill to me: why don't you just let cmd_repack call
> My feeling exactly. I would rather see a patch that does not touch
> pack-objects at all, and use run_command() interface to spawn it.
> Once we do have to pack, the necessary processing cycle will dwarf
> the fork/exec latency anyway, no?
I'm not opposed to run_command(). I think the reason I wanted to move
repack functionality to pack-objects is to avoid reading sha-1 from
pack-objects and reconstruct the paths again from the sha-1. But for
simplicity, perhaps we should not touch pack-objects at all. Then we
could have builtin/repack.c instead of stuffing cmd_repack in
@Stefan, if you want to push this work, feel free to take it as _your_
patch, rewrite as will. You don't need to retain my name.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html